hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

you never her

just read the 204 updates so far and you'll be right up to speed

bwaha gawker staff discovers brand guidelines

http://io9.com/here-is-adobes-attempt-to-stop-people-from-using-the-te-1726724005

gawker posted a giant photo of the ny daily news' front page and invoked 9/11 as some kind of defense idk

have they moved on from preventing another iraq war to preventing another 9/11?

i thought Brian Beutler was pretty persuasive on this, despite the fact that I've not seen the video yet:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122622/more-people-should-see-vester-flanagan-kill-his-coworkers-live-tv

the most hilarious argument ever. "we do this...because at some point it will effect public policy! sure, people've been looking at images and videos like this since Daniel Pearl and nothing's changed, but give us the time to harvest more clicks and surely the public will stop looking and start demanding action!"

it remains amazing and a point of some disgust that showing a woman's nipple of saying the word motherfucker is condemned as illegal both day and night on any basic cable/network television network or radio station in the land but as long as you put it behind the fig leaf of "this footage may be disturbing to some viewers", you can screen killings at 5pm in the name of truth and ratings

yeah i get the impulse but a president who'd just won reelection made gun control a priority following an elementary school being shot up and the issue got zero traction. just getting the issue back to where it was when the brady bill passed will take a long, slow effort.

http://lifehacker.com/5901898/take-a-break-and-play-some-video-games-this-weekend

― dick wet with chickenshit (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, August 7, 2015 9:50 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lmao

they should do a masturbation one with tips on how to hack lube

"Skip the lube and use coconut oil." Duh.

the most hilarious argument ever. "we do this...because at some point it will effect public policy! sure, people've been looking at images and videos like this since Daniel Pearl and nothing's changed, but give us the time to harvest more clicks and surely the public will stop looking and start demanding action!"

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:15 PM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what about vegetarians showing us gruesome slaughterhouse carnage?

I don't watch that stuff, I'm not sure it does any good - except that its goal is largely "stop people, one viewer at a time, from eating meat" which anecdotally anyhow it maybe does? not sure the analogy holds -- most people, every day, are somehow connected to what goes down in a slaughterhouse, that's kind of the point of that footage -- "this is a daily occurrence that you fund if you eat meat, you may not know that this is going on." the message of a shooting video is not "you have actually shot somebody today or helped this person shoot somebody, here, watch this and stop shooting people"

people've been looking at images and videos like this since Daniel Pearl and nothing's changed

― tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:15 PM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ppl (americans) generally as a group have not been looking at images like this, which is why showing them on the cover of a newspaper was controversial, maybe u wld like to argue that it will have no effect but to say its been tried is incorrect

fwiw non stop tv coverage of the veitnam war is widely credited as being key in turning public opinion against it which is why our government has worked hard to sanitize war reporting ever since

i think i'm actually at the point where i'm desensitized. like i used to w/ any tragedy on any kind of relatable scale just really dwell on the sadness, imagining being in those ppl's places, what there families were going thru, it would occupy my thoughts consistently for awhile, way beyond a normal emotional or rational reaction and probably just a manifestation of ever present depression. i mean i can get shook up by roadkill. and now w/ this i'm not even doing the 'how did this become normal?' thing anymore.

i certainly do not at all want to see the videos of this shit but im sympathetic to the argument that its newsworthy and has value

i'm sympathetic to that argument, i'm skeptical that a ny tabloid or a millennial bear blog possess the tact or skills to be doing it

i mean if just the right piece of journalism turns the tide on gun control it won't come in the form of gawker figuring out the precise reddit thread to plagiarize

sorry "aggregate" /fatjewish

gawker publish it cause they think thats what other journalists should do not cause they will single handedly turn the tide on gun control

i mean what all journalists

fwiw non stop tv coverage of the veitnam war is widely credited as being key in turning public opinion against it which is why our government has worked hard to sanitize war reporting ever since

this is totally true, but it's a pretty different world now, also war vs. gun legislation p. different issues. there was an editorial making the rounds, forget who by, that said look -- if we didn't do anything after sandy hook, that's it, that's the end, we'll never do anything, what we are is a people who're willing to pay whatever cost to have guns. I think that's true. if a classroom full of kindergarteners being murdered doesn't result in any legislative effort to do....anything as far as I know?, then i don't think footage of murders will tip the balance.

dude... you think someone wasn't like, "well we're clearly a nation of slave-owners, that's it, that's the end, we'll never do anything, what we are is a people who're willing to pay whatever cost to have slaves" ???

someone was exasperated at one point in time with every worthwhile movement ever

what's so civil about war anyway

so, genuine q, you think if people keep seeing this footage, their outrage will build and grow stronger and eventually, collectively, Americans will say "that's it, the aggregate horror of all this can no longer be tolerated" and start electing politicians who'll pass laws against the wishes of the gun lobby that restrict access to firearms?

it is rad, I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, if you think that's gonna happen. I don't, I think my children will grow up in a much shittier and more violent country and nothing's going to help. still vote for all the ppl I'm supposed to vote for etc but I really think, nope, when the rubber hits the road we will do nothing, we like guns too much.

yeah i think it's easily countereffective

something like noting every single time a cop kills someone, esp someone unarmed and black, is definitely worthwhile and having video there is useful in establishing facts of the case. this isn't that though, this is some faces of death shit wrapped up in gawker 'this is how we prevent another 9/11' branding.

Gawker is taking the "we should have shown pictures from inside the classrooms at Sandy Hook" which nah I'm good thanks I'm already as anti-gun as it gets please miss me with that

the problem with the theory that watching that guy shoot his victims will create policy changes is that the footage doesn't present the public with a concrete obvious enemy to revile other than the shooter. it takes an abstract leap to blame the culture of guns and even once you make that leap, the simplest types of policy change, e.g. ban handguns and confiscate existing ones, are ones the public is not prepared to embrace and the more complicated policy changes are too complicated for the public to grasp without a lot more education than just watching that video.

another problem w/ it is there is some literature that suggests giving these killers publicity helps spawn new ones, the way an earlier media fascination w/ serial killers actually may have led to a spike in serial killers. i'm not sure how you don't 'promote' these killings while still giving them the coverage they warrant but i'm guessing sharing the killer's instagram feed isn't it.

u guys are overlooking how all those antiwar books and films have stopped war.

hey, they convinced me not to start any wars!

the simplest types of policy change, e.g. ban handguns and confiscate existing ones

lmao

aimless otm for once tbh, as long as you accept that "simplest" means something different there from the lol interpretation

http://i.imgur.com/03astMN.png

from a gun nut forum btw

Yeah, just coming in to support the bit about how graphic Vietnam footage helped change the American support for that war, to the point where Coppola felt the need to include a bit in his film 10+ years later about the coverage of the war being a significant thing.

Still, don't nec. think that the constant rebroadcasting of the violence does any good at all.

another problem w/ it is there is some literature that suggests giving these killers publicity helps spawn new ones
^^^
he shot his own footage ffs
imo this kind of killer especially shd not be given the media replays, which he planned & wished for

so the flash is in the pocket of the nra huh smdh

Because Superman notoriously in the pocket of big tobacco iirc

IN December 1980, a novel anti-smoking campaign aimed at children aged from seven to eleven was launched by the Health Education Council. The campaign pitted the cartoon super-hero Superman against a newly-invented super-villian, Nick O'Teen. By the time the campaign ended in 1982, over 800,000 children had requested material produced by the HEC. The venture produced a positive response from schools, and evaluation demonstrated a significant impact on children themselves. In addition, the campaign proved to be of continuing interest to the mass media, with references to it being made two years after advertising ceased. It also provoked considerable international interest.

"And tomorrow we get rid of cigarettes"

"lol that'd be dope"

IN December 1980, a novel anti-smoking campaign aimed at children aged from seven to eleven was launched by the Health Education Council. The campaign pitted the cartoon super-hero Superman against a newly-invented super-villian, Nick O'Teen. By the time the campaign ended in 1982, over 800,000 children had requested material produced by the HEC. The venture produced a positive response from schools, and evaluation demonstrated a significant impact on children themselves. In addition, the campaign proved to be of continuing interest to the mass media, with references to it being made two years after advertising ceased. It also provoked considerable international interest.

I just remembered that in the 1930s there was a villain in, I think, Buck Rogers named Coe Kane.

let's not forget dc's cocaine-powered villain snowflame:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/14/142926/3543170-snowflame.jpg

decidedly mixed messages there

can someone please photoshop snowflame's dialogue onto this pic of rob ford and maybe we can get this thread back on track

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1215636/images/o-ROB-FORD-ONTARIO-LIBERALS-facebook.jpg

Aimless otm, people will see this footage and be horrified and outraged and take all of that and place the blame on literally anything other than guns because they're too fucking blind and stupid to analyze things